You would think after an intense couple of decades of news stories, “Dateline” specials, advocates like Richard Simmons, Jared and Oprah, and declaring obesity an epidemic in America, the dead horse named national health could stop being beaten. But then came the prophet, Michael Pollan, to take a few more swings and reenergize the debate.
For all of you who have had it with this issue, believe me when I say that I know. I know it’s been covered. People have been talking about this for years now.
I’d like to think I’m creative enough to come up with a fresh, original topic, but here we are.
What bothers me, however, is exactly that. This topic, though obvious and flat, will not go away. And like any issue that becomes oversaturated by the media, an imbalance between the issue and reality is created. This imbalance is currently leading to people being stripped of their right of personal choice.
If you have just recently come out of a coma and don’t already know, spearheading the reemergence of nutrition awareness today is Michael Pollan, author of “In Defense of Food.” He repeats the same mantra about fruits and vegetables that we’ve all been hearing on “Sesame Street” since we were 4. To him I say: Michael Pollan, you son of a bitch, leave my food preferences alone. That’s all I need is for intellectuals to judge me on something else. They’ve already taken the Hummer and gym shoes made by children away from me. Let me at least eat my genetically altered, fat-filled meals in peace.
Modern food is a cheap, delicious solution to Mother Nature’s inadequacies, the metaphorical formula to her breast milk. I liken a just eaten, gigantic apple loaded with hormones to Rambo-era Sylvester Stallone and late ’90s baseball. Would any one of them have been as good as they were without the supplements? No. I want pumpkins so big that, after I hollow them out, I can use them as a tool shed. Trans fats and partially hydrogenated soybean oil are the ingredients of my happiness.
One need only drive a few miles to the nearest McDonalds to enjoy one of mankind’s tastiest creations and pay homage to modern food. Let’s see Mother Nature make a McGriddle. Forget about it.
Modern food may, for some, carry with it the stigma of carcinogenic additives, which ignores the benefits of food science and the modernization of agriculture. If we were to try to do without the advances in food science and pesticides, herbicides, irrigation, and cultivation and rely solely on organic farming, the amount of the earth that would need to be devoted to agriculture would be immense, converting already limited amounts of natural ecosystems and habitat to organic farmland.
Americans haven’t suffered from a severe crop loss caused by disease or insects for decades. Pesticides not only allow farmers to live more comfortably but also prevent famine.
Not that the benefits of organic farming should be disregarded entirely, but it, like most anything, still has negative side effects that should be understood.
What it comes down to is personal choice. If I want to be unhealthy and eat these empty, cancer-causing but gratifying types of food, no one, not Jared, not a doctor, not a university, not a recent reader of “In Defense of Food,” should be able to tell me otherwise. It’s like telling a smoker that cigarettes are bad for them. What am I, an idiot? A person has the right to put any legal substance in their body regardless of its effects.
The idea of personal rights in regards to the food we eat would seem elementary but, perhaps like the thousands of others caught up in the rebirth of this nutritional nonsense, it’s this right that one university is taking away from its students.
According to an article posted on Insidehighered.com, at Lincoln University in Oxford, Pa., obese students are required to have a body mass index less than 30, the standard for obesity, or take a semester-long “Fitness for Life” class before graduating. Currently, 24 seniors are in danger of not graduating because of their health.
This is outrageous. Personal health has nothing to do with academics. An individual’s or institution’s concern for somebody’s health should never supersede that person’s right to disregard their own weight.
A good number of people in America are overweight, the result of our sedentary lifestyles and abundance of unhealthy food. I can only imagine our forefathers dreamed of a world like this as they hauled their asses across the Oregon Trail. If too many people are fat, that must mean things are going well. Once people in Houston start to starve, then we should really start to worry.
The current state of America’s health is the expression of personal choice and national wealth. We should all be allowed to eat how we want; while farmers and the food industry should be allowed to try to turn the largest profit they can while still meeting USDA and FDA standards.
Let’s not let this current perspective on modern food and national health turn us into irrational people, willing to take away others’ rights. Instead, let us think of obesity as a celebration — not an epidemic — of America’s wealth and technological advances.
I implore all of you opposed to modern food to grab a bag of Cheetos and remind yourselves just how wonderful life can be.
David Carter ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in forestry.






IP hash: c5f49089
“A person has the right to put any legal substance in their body regardless of its effects.”
Yes, they do. However, by mentioning cigarettes, you neglect a crucial point. Cigarettes, like alcohol, have excise (“sin”) taxes on them, due to the social cost associated with their (ab)use. Cigarettes, as everybody and their mother knows, cause various forms of cancer and result in a burden on our health system. The cost of treating cancer can not usually be covered by the average smoker, so money is drawn from tax payers to cover the costs.
Obesity and malnutrition cause this same burden, and perhaps to an even greater degree. Afflictions like Type 2 Diabetes, Cardiovascular disease and obesity take huge tolls on our health care system. These are caused mainly by diet and lifestyle, as you mentioned. Yes, while the choice to suck down pureed Ho-Hos through a straw does signify we have come a long way, bad diet carries significant social costs - costs taxpayers, fat or fit, are forced to cover. So yeah, personal diet, widened to a national scale, does have a significant impact on more than just the individual in question, just as smoking cigarettes does.
…and that’s not even to mention the very real problems with industrial agriculture, herbicides, pesticides, meat production, salmonella and E Coli contamination (a “severe crop loss caused by disease,” no?), etc
IP hash: d3a931a3
But don’t obese people pay more for their insurance?
IP hash: c5f49089
I believe in many cases, especially with private health insurers, they do. However, obesity is much more a problem with those of lower incomes - ones who are much less likely to be able to cover health insurance costs to begin with, let alone higher insurance rates due to obesity. Thus, tax payers are still forced to cover the results of their poor diets and lifestyle.
(An aside: god, please tell me I’m not coming off as a libertarian. To clarify: I think if people can’t accept the results [i.e. the costs], of their actions, the government should come in and tax these actions to collect the revenue to cover the costs - just like with tobacco and alcohol. Ideally, healthy food would be subsidized, not the feed for Grade-F meat or the corn that is turned into dozens of forms of sugar. And yes, I do realize subsidies are much more complicated than that, but I don’t want to get that into that right now.)
IP hash: f151ec33
“bad diet carries significant social costs - costs taxpayers, fat or fit, are forced to cover.”
Those so-called “social costs” are actually the cost of curtailing the freedom of individuals - forcing them to pay for other people’s choices. To use this as justification for further restricting liberty just adds insult to injury.
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that amounts to: you can’t be free because we’re not allowing you to be free.
IP hash: d0ca982a
Not to worry, in the Age of Obama the State will determine what you are allowed to eat, as well as the amount. Morning calisthenics will also be required!
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.
IP hash: a7c10e16
Bushy was more liberal in that aspect than Obama.
See the Patriot Act.